Letters: Let's take the cameras away from our blowhard politicians

A small but perhaps important step in improving this state of affairs would be the removal of television cameras and mobile phones from the Holyrood and Westminster chambers. Whilst some might initially view this as a retrograde step, it could help our legislators focus on the task at hand. Starved of the oxygen of the television soundbite, they might be better able to focus on informed, constructive debate. Official recorders would still transcribe the debates, and television, radio and print journalists would continue to report (and even better explain) exchanges.

Elimination of mobile phones, meanwhile, which are intentionally designed to be as distracting as possible, would also serve as a useful example to society as a whole. Most social media applications prioritise user engagement as a key metric. Since this is heightened by disagreement and division, their use drives polarisation in our everyday debate. We are only just beginning to witness the consequences of this polarisation, and it is an urgent issue that we must address.

I appreciate that many will consider me naive, but one can live in hope. Politicians serve their constituents after all, most of whom I am sure would agree that hate speech has no place in political discourse.
Nick Ruane, Edinburgh

• SO Nicola Sturgeon "detests" the Tories and all they stand for? I wonder then how on earth she could have borne working with Annabel Goldie's Tories 2007-2011 in Holyrood? She certainly concealed her detestation during those four years very well.
Jane Ann Liston, St Andrews

This is no union of equals

I AND many Scots transferred our voting preference to the SNP simply because of “what it says on the tin”. We don’t think that in terms of the ability to govern as a group of individuals they are spectacularly more gifted than other socialist parties or that we agree wholeheartedly with all of their legislation, we just want Scotland to be independent. The farce that is taking place at the Supreme Court where ridiculous statements like the “bill [is] clearly about ending the Union” ("Indy referendum move ‘clearly about ending Union’, Supreme Court hears", The Herald, October 13) sums up the situation; what other plausible reason would the elected Government of Scotland have for wanting a referendum on the single topic of independence?

We are not a part of England wanting to break away from the rest of it but a historically distinct country with its own traditions, legal system and the like. The fact that we Scots have essentially to get permission to hold a referendum from Parliament in Westminster, which in effect is controlled by individuals elected by English constituencies and dominated by the interests of the English Establishment, reinforces the reality that Scotland is not part of a Union of equals.

This situation should not come as a surprise to anyone who has the slightest grasp of the history of the British Isles or has ever wondered why names such as Fort George came into existence. Scotland is and always has been a profitable English colony and they will never voluntarily give it up; if we were a financial drain on the Westminster Treasury, they would have dumped us long ago.
David J Crawford, Glasgow

• GR Weir (Letters, October 13) is very much mistaken when he refers to "continued (colonial) suppression of Scotland's elected voice" and when he claims that "Scotland is refused its right of self-determination".

In fact, Scotland's elected voice – the Scottish Government and above all the First Minister – are to be seen and heard every day of the week, indeed too much so for most of us, who wish they would just shut up for once in a while. As for "colonial", Scotland is an integrated part of a unitary state, which is about as far from colony status as one could find.

And self-determination? That was already exercised when Scotland chose to remain in that unitary state in the SNP's own once in a generation referendum in 2014.
Peter A Russell, Glasgow

Deal with more pressing matters

THE Scottish Government has gone to the Supreme Court to get a ruling on whether it can legally hold an independence referendum in October 2023. This is another fiasco brought on by a regime which can't accept the fact that it lost the vote the first time round. It's only the legal counsel who will be putting their arguments for and against who will be lining their pockets, and then there is the cost of another referendum all paid for by us, the people of Scotland, many of whom are perfectly happy being members of the United Kingdom.

Please deal with the more pressing matters, namely ferries, railways, roads, health and education and stop being like a child who can't accept the word "No".
Neil Stewart, Balfron

Give us balance on spending

WHILE Alexander McKay (Letters, October 13) ignores the annual UK propaganda spending of the Scotland Office and bemoans the spending (comparable with a single year of Scotland Office funding) on a referendum that the Scottish Government was elected to deliver, the UK National Audit Office has issued a report estimating that £4.5 billion was lost due to fraud and error in rolling out the Covid-19 employment support schemes alone ("Covid furlough scheme lost billions to fraud and error, report claims", heraldscotland, October 13).

This further enormous and totally irresponsible waste of public money by the UK Government represents a loss to Scotland of nearly £400 million which does not include Scotland’s “share” of the tens of billions of pounds lost through bad, if not corrupt, PPE procurement and the ineffective "track and trace" system. This latest revelation of UK Government financial incompetence, while largely unreported in much of the mainstream media, amounts to more than enough to cover the cost of building two advanced but delayed ferries, the budgeted referendum expenditure and the establishment of Scottish business representative offices in every country in the world if so desired.

Will Mr McKay or others who are persistently critical of Scottish Government spending now add some objective balance to those criticisms, as at the time of writing we still remain in a supposed union, albeit an increasingly dysfunctional “partnership”, or is this just wishful thinking on my part?
Stan Grodynski, Longniddry

Trickle-down does not work

THIS Cabinet has adopted, without any form of electoral mandate, an economic strategy based on deregulation and tax cuts.

There is much informed opinion that such policies will not achieve any meaningful “trickle-down”, the result being instead greater inequality and cuts in public services which are contrary not only to Scotland’s social democratic sentiments but to those of many Brits.

As Andrew Learmonth reports ("Chancellor is urged to ‘put aside pride’ and axe Budget", The Herald, October 12), Labour is urging the Chancellor “to end this trickle-down nonsense”. Furthermore, not only has the International Monetary Fund urged Liz Truss and Kwasi Kwarteng to U-turn on their unfunded tax cuts but a group of senior economists reminded the Commons Treasury Committee that the markets are questioning the credibility of the government’s strategy.
John Milne, Uddingston

A moving answer

I RESPECTFULLY suggest to Nigel Dewar Gibb (Letters, October 13) that a more likely reason for choosing the “Get Britain Moving" slogan was to confirm that this year’s Conservative conference was the laxative required after two years of heavy partying at Boris Johnson’s London speakeasy.
Ian Hiddleston, Dundee

Read more letters: Why should I take advice from someone who detests me?

Letters should not exceed 500 words. We reserve the right to edit submissions.